Library Committee Handbook

Library Faculty Meeting Agenda Committee

Library Faculty Meeting

Meetings 2012-2013

Meetings 2011-2012

Meetings 2010-2011

Meetings 2009-2010

Meetings 2008-2009

Meetings 2007-2008

Meetings 2006-2007

Meetings 2005-2006

Meetings 2004-2005

Meetings 2003-2004

Meetings 2002-2003

Meetings 2001-2002

Faculty Meeting Minutes October 26, 2011

MINUTES

of the

LIBRARY FACULTY MEETING

 

Date: October 26, 2011

Location: 126 GSLIS

Time: 3pm – 4:30pm

Call to Order

 

Standing Items:

Adoption of the Agenda

The Agenda was adopted.

 

Approval of Minutes  

The Minutes from the September 21 meeting were approved.

 

Introductions  

Chatham Ewing introduced Martin Stromberg as Visiting Scholar and Curator for the Rare Books and Manuscripts Library. Beth Sheehan introduced Kelly McCusker who has been hired to provide much needed support for the Library in the areas of Sociology and Geography.

 

            Report of the University Librarian

 No report – Paula was travelling.

 

            Executive Committee Discussion Items

 

Search Committee Updates – David Ward

Background

Chairs or others involved in current searches were invited to provide updates on the searches currently underway and ask for input from the faculty.

 

Updates

 

Tina Chrzastowski – E-Resources Cataloger Search. The Committee has finished interviews and paperwork and hopes to make an offer by Friday October 28.

Sarah Shreeves. – Preservation Librarian Search. The Committee is actively recruiting. The position involves a heavy component of digital preservation. Tom Teper is Chair for this committee.

Tina Chrzastowski – Assessment Coordinator Search. The Committee is inviting candidates for on campus interviews in early November.

Paula Carns – Latin American Studies Librarian Search. The Committee is writing the job description.

Michael Norman - Tech. Services Project Coordinator Search. The Committee is waiting for approval from campus. The job description is approved and the Committee hopes to close the search by the end of November. This position is an AP position. Candidates need project management experience.

Beth Woodard – RRSS Search. The job description is complete and the job is posted and closing November 4. The Committee is planning on interviewing between Nov 28 and Dec 15. The Committee is looking for candidates who can be appointed with tenure.

 

Faculty Job Descriptions – David Ward

 

Background

Due to shifts in the Library’s structure and functions, many faculty librarians have titles and job descriptions that no longer accurately reflect their current job responsibilities and primary activities. The process of updating official job titles at the Campus level is a formal process that may not be the most efficient way to update current librarian responsibilities. EC needs input on the best way to update faculty job descriptions and job titles.

 

Questions

 

  1. What would be a good process for making updates to job descriptions and job titles?

 

  1. How do we want to move a process forward?

(Comments provided by: Beth Woodard, John Wagstaff, Mary Laskowski, Michael Norman, Lynne Rudasill, JoAnn Jacoby, Scott Schwartz, Joanne Kaczmarek, Beth Sheehan, Karen Hogenboom, Merinda Hensley, Pat Allen, Chatham Ewing)

Possible process for updating job descriptions:

  1. Everyone review their current job description and rewrite it to more accurately reflect what they are currently doing or should be doing. (Possible problem: How do we ensure these reviewed descriptions accurately reflect what they should be doing?)
  2. EC review everyone’s current job description and write them to more accurately reflect what they should be doing. (Possible problem: EC may not be fully aware of what they should be doing.)
  3. Have FRC extract job descriptions from what faculty put into their Librarianship portion of their Annual Reports. (Possible problem: The Annual Report may accurately reflect what the faculty are doing but it may not reflect what they should be doing. What about doing away with official University titles (leaving, just, for example, the assistant, associate, or full-professor part) and have the description process and more detailed job titles just be local within the Library?

 

Possible process for updating job titles:

  1. Have a two-tiered job title. First tier, everyone’s title is the same and this is what goes to the Campus: Assistant/Associate/Full Professor of Library Administration. Second tier is for use within the Library and is more detailed. This level of job title can be changed without going through the Campus. Possible problems: Will the more detailed job title be reflected in the Campus Directory? Named professorships would need to be exceptions, reflected in the Campus level title. This process should not affect how job searches are listed. The Campus system would reflect the position status but the local, more meaningful, title could still go into the job search ads.

 

Discussion ensued specifically regarding job description updates:

  1. Each individual should be able to best articulate his/her job responsibilities. It does not seem worthwhile to have some other group (EC, FRC, etc.) making a final determination of our job descriptions.
  2. The frequency as well as the process of review will need to be determined.
  3. An initial vetting by some group (EC, FRC) seems appropriate but not until individuals provide something upfront.
  4. What happens if important tasks fall out of the scope of certain individuals and don’t get picked up by others? How do we first determine these important tasks and then make certain they are picked up?
  5. It would be helpful to have a “whole picture” of the Library and of its core functions and activities
  6. Would we be expected to map our job descriptions explicitly to our annual reports each year?
  7. We want to avoid a competitive “job describing” climate where we are spending unnecessary time on re-wording our job descriptions.
  8. We could have a simple one-time across-the-board review of everyone’s job descriptions, starting first with what each librarian provides to EC and then review only when there are major events such as a complete shift in the structure or primary functions and activities of the Library and/or position. This could avoid having everyone think about job descriptions every year. Alternately, if an initial review across the board is not deemed possible or necessary, a review of specific job descriptions could be done by EC at the request of the incumbent or when a need is identified by EC through other means.


A proposal was submitted to conduct a non-binding advisory vote. The vote was to determine whether or not we wanted to recommend to EC the following:

 

EC should look into the possibility of a common campus-level title (Assistant, Associate, Full Professor of Library Administration, plus a secondary Library-level title that can be changed more easily when changes in specific job responsibilities occur.

 

If EC determines this is possible, EC would need to bring the matter before the faculty prior to implementing any permanent change in the way our titles are applied to our positions.

 

The advisory vote passed with 18 yeas, 0 nays, and 3 abstaining votes.

 

 

Strategic Planning Update – David Ward

 

The Strategic Planning Committee has not gotten a lot of feedback from the Library faculty and we would like to get more. We’re trying to reduce some of the bullet points in the Strategic Planning document, and make sure we are clear about areas for new, major investment.

 

Questions

  1. What specific things should we be targeting as part of the plan? (Collections, collection development, etc.)
  2. Is anything missing or does anything need to be called to the attention of the task force?

 

(Comments provided by: Tina Chrzastowski, JoAnn Jacoby, Pat Allen)

 

There is a lack of mention of assessment in the document. This at least needs to be included as a guiding value. How are we going to figure out if we meet our goals if there’s no way to measure, assess that we’ve completed them? We need some sort of metrics—we need to do more than promote assessment; we need to actually do it.


The concept of sustainable models of collection management is not clear. Can this be spelled out in the document? Does it really mean sustainable or rather efficient?

 

A lot of the goals have to do with technology but we don’t seem to be investing in the infrastructure to support everything. We need more than support for innovation—we need support for core or foundational infrastructure. How can we get this mentioned in the strategic plan document? The document also needs to mention “meat and potatoes” kinds of services, and not just support those that are “sexy” but also those that are fundamental to the services offered by the Library.

 

The Strategic Planning Committee is seeking all feedback by November 5. The final draft should be ready for review before Winter break.

 

Old Business

(none)

 

New Business

(none)

 

Ad Hoc Items

(none)


Announcements

(none)

 

Adjourned 3:55pm.